When I was in journalism school in the early 1970s (still something of the hippie era in universities), I was one of three members of Greek fraternity / sorority system in the program. The other two were members of sororities, and one of them was in advertising, not the news / editorial sequence.
As
a general rule, journalism students did not like the Greek system. This was an
egalitarian time in universities, and, by and large, journalism students saw
fraternities and as elitist, playgrounds for the children of the well-to-do.
There was some of that, of course; but the Greek system actually offered a
reflection of the student demographics as a whole. My own family, for example,
was not well-to-do; it was about as middle class as you could get.
The
three of us in journalism school who were “Greeks” experienced some derogatory
comments from our fellow student journalists but it was not something to file a
lawsuit over. But the antagonism was clearly there but it wasn’t overt. The
faculty was generally of a similar mind.
I’ve
read the report
by the Columbia Journalism Review
of the “failure in journalism” by Rolling
Stone Magazine in its story about the alleged gang rape at a fraternity at the
University of Virginia. The editors of Rolling
Stone have apologized and retracted the story. A fraternity’s reputation
was destroyed. The university’s reputation was damaged. But at least the
magazine apologized. That’s something, I suppose.
The
CJR report on the story is long, painstaking and excruciatingly detailed. There
was no single failure; the failures were multiple and compounding. I read the
report because I wanted to see if the CJR review team identified what was
likely the biggest failure and the impetus for doing the story in the first
place.
A
statement of it is there, but it’s not identified in and of itself as a cause
or contributing factor.
The
fact is that the reporter started with
her conclusion. And then went looking for an example to verify it. She
found it. The example wasn’t perfect, and it had problems that should have
raised red flags. The fact that the alleged victim fingered a fraternity only
made it a better story. And it played all the right notes: male supremacy,
female victim, sexual crime, elitist school, elitist fraternity. The story was too good not to be true.
Did
the reporter and the Rolling Stone
not remember what happened with the lacrosse team at Duke University? That one
turned out to be fiction, too.
I
don’t downplay sexual crime and rape. They’re despicable. They’re serious
problems, and they’re serious problems on college campuses, as they are in
society at large.
But
the media believing and promoting its own narratives without question is also a
problem, and destructive in a different way.
These
media narratives – the stories the media believe without question – are tearing
the fabric of society apart.
It
was a media narrative that helped demonize police in Ferguson, and my own town’s
daily newspaper led the way with its screaming, hysterical editorials. Even the
Justice Department, which has promoted plenty of its own narratives, eventually
corroborated Officer Darren Wilson’s account of what happened.
And
it was a media narrative that gave us the spectacle of Indiana. You have to
stop and ask yourself if any of the people making solemn, grim pronouncements –
Tim Cook of Apple, Hilary Clinton, the NCAA, the reporters and editorial
writers covering the issue – bothered to read the law in the first place. (No
one bothered to ask Tim Cook about Apple’s business connections with China, one
of the worst abusers of human rights on the planet, not to mention Uganda,
which has the death penalty for people convicted of homosexuality. No, to ask
Tim Cook about those issues would have been inconvenient to the media
narrative.)
The
media promote individual liberty to the detriment of everything else. Religious
liberty isn’t even a concern. Truth and reality aren’t concerns if they get in
the way of the narrative.
But
the media should be concerned. Freedom of religion can be found in the First
Amendment of the Constitution. It’s the same amendment that houses freedom of
speech. And the right to assembly. And the right to petition the government.
And
freedom of the press.
The
media are going to lose it.
And
we will all lose with it.
We
already are.
Photograph by George Hodan via Public
Domain Pictures. Used with permission.
3 comments:
Brilliant commentary, Glynn. You nailed it perfectly!
Blessings!
We hosted a Legislative breakfast which had 3 men from the state legislature here. They talked about the bill they signed and...get this...they were swayed to pass the bill by a pro-gay, pro-gay marriage professor from IU who testified this was a good bill to pass. Did the media ever check that out? Nope. I happen to agree with the bill in its original form. Sorry for the commentary Glynn but I tire of media bias.
I appreciate your commentary Glynn and your ability to shine a light on what the real issue is.
thanks!
Post a Comment